I have SVN commit access for grass-addons, is this also valid for grass7? BTW my nightmare is to screw up the svn history that's why I hesitate to submit directly to grass7 (or grass64).
Helena Mitasova wrote: > Markus, > > at this point, as you suggest, the best would be to work on this in > grass7 - do you have SVN commit access? > > Helena > > > On Dec 5, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Markus Metz wrote: > >> >> Dylan Beaudette wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Markus Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I took the request for MFD support in r.watershed by Helena and >>>> Dylan to >>>> heart and implemented it, but still need a few more days to clean >>>> up the >>>> code, then I want to submit it as r.watershed2.mfd to grass-addons. >>>> >>>> >>> Is there any way to >>> cleanly merge this with the existing r.watershed code in SVN so that >>> we can test it? >>> >> Also considering Michael's remarks, I suggets that I then not submit to >> grass-addons, but to grass 7. Not to grass-6.4.x, because this code is >> now more experimental and documentation still needs to be written. >> The MFD algorithm seems to be robust and produces the expected results >> with nice differences according to the convergence factor, but the other >> outputs are different and I don't know yet if this is ok and desired >> or not. >> The basins and half-basins are different, less so for coarser >> resolution, rather disastrous with MFD for the 1m LIDAR DEM in the North >> Carolina dataset. It seems that such a DEM should be processed with >> coarser resolution to obtain basins and half-basins that make sense, >> apparently both for SFD and MFD, but these a just first impressions. > > You may be using a threshold that is too small. >> >> Slope length (LS for USLE) and slope steepness (S for USLE) are about >> 99.9% identical between SFD and MFD with the DEM <elevation> in the >> North Carolina dataset. Streams are again different, i.e. MFD streams >> need to be thinned then they are very similar to SFD, but MFD streams >> make sense. >> Once I have added MFD to segmented mode too and updated the >> documentation, the module is ready to be submitted and scrutinised by >> others. >> >> This is no easy feat to modify r.watershed, I want to make sure the old >> behaviour is preserved when adding new functionality and I need some >> more time before submitting. I don't like to submit code with bugs... >> >> Markus Metz >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> grass-dev mailing list >> grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev > _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev